Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Detainees at Camp X-Ray Go on Hunger Strike; Investigators Say They Know What Happened to van Dam; Convictions in Louima Case Overturned

Aired February 28, 2002 - 15:02   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

As you know, there is a lot happening today. A hunger strike is under way in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees are upset over the way one prisoner was treated. Also, investigators believe they know what happened to 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. And the convictions of three police officers in connection with the torture of Haitian immigrant have been overturned. So let's get started.

A federal appeals court has overturned the convictions of Charles Schwarz, Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder. The three New York police officers were convicted of obstruction of justice in connection to the torture of Abner Louima. It all happened in a police station rest room in 1997. And CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick is on hand to explain what happened today in court. Deborah, what does the court's decision mean for each of these officers?

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's what we've got so far. Basically, this is a drastic turn of events for the three police officers who were found guilty of taking part in the assault. Charles Schwarz has been serving 15 years for violating Abner Louima's civil rights, he's the man in the middle there. Well, Schwarz can now be out on bail. He earlier was found guilty of holding down Abner Louima while another officer sodomized the Haitian immigrant with a plunger handle. Schwarz is an ex-Marine. He's always said that he was not the second officer in the station house bathroom during the assault.

Today, the appeals court finding the jury received information which biased them during deliberations, and that Schwarz was denied effective assistance of counsel. Schwarz's lawyers now are preparing a bail application, the lawyer, Ron Fasceti (ph), saying that the prosecutor in this did speak to him, even congratulated him, but not making clear exactly what the government's next step would be.

Schwarz's wife Andra (ph) ecstatic. She was on her way this weekend to visit him at an Oklahoma prison. She has devoutly stood by her husband, rallying anyone who would listen to help get him out.

Now, as for the other two officers, Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder, the appeals court threw out their convictions -- they were serving five years -- saying there was simply not enough evidence to have found both guilty of taking part in the cover-up of the assault.

So again, a big turn of events. Abner Louima, meantime, is in Florida. He said that he is leaving to talk to his lawyers. Civil rights activists here in the city a bit outraged that, in fact, this has happened. They had said that it's clear in their opinion that the judicial system does not protect people who have been hurt by police officers -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Deborah Feyerick, thank you very much for filling us in this afternoon. And right now, we are going to talk about this some more with the Reverend Al Sharpton, who joins us. He's the president of the National Action Network, a civil rights organization. And retired New York City police officer Gerald Kelly. He's the author of the book "Honor for Sale," about corruption in the NYPD.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here with me this afternoon. And I would like to pose the question to you, are you surprised by this decision? Is it good or bad?

REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: I think it is a terrible decision. I think that when you look at the fact that you have a case here where a policeman at trial after lying for several months saying he did nothing finally pled guilty that he, in fact, took Abner Louima in the police station, stuck a plunger up his rectum that led to permanent damage of Louima, almost killed him, and now people that were charged and convicted of helping and lying about it are overturned. It really continues the whole feeling of believing that the courts will not make police pay if they are found wrong.

I think after months of all of us rallying around police in the city, we certainly do not want to believe that those bad police feel they have the immunity. There is no way this officer could have done this without other police being involved, hearing the screaming, hearing the torture. And if this stands, only one man will pay for obviously what only one man could not have done.

NEVILLE: Mr. Kelly, what do you say to that? How does this make the police department look?

GERALD KELLY, NYC POLICE OFFICER (RET.): Well, first of all, I did not know Al was so always on the side of the police officer and rallying around them recently. That was news to me, but maybe I don't know all of that. But however, I think Al is -- should be a man of the cloth, not a man of the suit, and looking at it just one-sided. This was a court decision here today. He has not read this court decision.

SHARPTON: I have read it.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: ... Mr. Louima's lawyers, that's not true.

KELLY: Anyway, you are not a lawyer. The case came down here and it said that there were many inequities during this trial, and this is what this is about. They said that this man should be given a new trial. You know, if we were to go here and discuss the merits of this case, everybody has heard it before. Everybody. New York City policemen, Reverend Sharpton, everybody was disgusted at this case. Justin Volpe got his just due, but I do believe that we still in America would like to put the right man in jail if there should be another man in jail.

Al made a very, very good point, I conquer with him wholeheartedly, that somebody else knew. Nobody is ever in a police station -- I have been involved over the course of years -- a lot of people knew what was going on in that station house. But I don't know it it was Charles Schwarz, and I don't think because a lot of people knew things were going on in that place, that Charles Schwarz should be said, you're going to pay for whoever was in that station house that night.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: ... not the only one that was overturned here. Among the others overturned is Wiese who it is now alleged that Mr. Volpe's saying was the guy in the bathroom. So you are not just talking about Schwarz here, as well as Schwarz -- as the other convictions, Schwarz's has not been overturned.

What I think at stake here is that on some very flimsy technicalities about representation, which clearly these policemen knew, the lawyers they had was provided by the Patrolmen Benevolent Association that were representing others. They are going to overturn a conviction that clearly speaks to the confidence of people. Can you imagine in a police station that someone could torture someone and you talk about only one person going to pay when clearly there had to be the cooperation of other police to not only let it happen but cover up what's happened?

NEVILLE: Let me let David here standing by with me to get in on this conversation. David, what do you have to say?

DAVID: I agree with you. You know, there were people in that room, and of those three people, they knew what went on. And if those people are guilty -- and then the other people that were surrounding in the police station also heard those things, you know, they had an opportunity to stop, they had an opportunity, those three men -- one of those three men could have stopped what happened.

Because they're getting off on a technicality -- the key is, if they are guilty, they should be charged and they should be held accountable for their actions.

KELLY: We couldn't agree with you more, both Reverend Sharpton and myself, both agree that there were other people in that station house, not just any of those men involved or said to be involved, but other people knew what was going on. The point is here that all along, Justin Volpe said that it was not Charles Schwarz in the station house. He believed it was Thomas Wiese outside the station house. And so subsequently, they are now going to say, well, Charles Schwarz is going to take the fall for whoever might have been in there. It is the American system. We win some, we lose some, as we say. Last week, Al was already happy that Limerick Nelson's case was overturned.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: We're not going to get off of the subject here, guys. Thank you so much. We're going to let Tim here jump in on this conversation. You've been listening, and your thoughts are?

TIM: Well, while I do believe that more than one person was involved in the case, I do trust the system that they would go back to revisit and resolve this matter.

SHARPTON: But I think, again, I have read the decision. And if you read the decision, they don't even say what is being represented here. They said that they did not see sufficient evidence that they conspired to mislead a federal grand jury, but they do say that there was some obstruction done. This is why most legal analysts that have read this today say this is on a technicality of a federal grand jury.

So even my good friend here, Mr. Kelly, is saying that Mr. Volpe, if we want to believe him, said it was Wiese. Well, then why is Wiese walking away totally free when it is Schwarz that's facing a new trial? So even if I were to agree with Kelly, and I do not, even what he is saying is not going to happen, because right now Mr. Wiese is totally walking away, unless this -- unless a higher court reverses this. It is Schwarz facing a new trial, not Wiese. That is absurd.

NEVILLE: Reverend Sharpton, you are in touch with the community. How do you think the people will react to this? Do you expect any sort of civil unrest at all?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, you never had unrest when it happened. What you had is a lot of protests and a lot of demonstrations, and I think those protesters were led to the federal government coming in in the first place, and clearly we are going to do whatever is necessary to make sure that the government understands we want to see, one, this new trial go forward with the proper aggression, because they ordered a new trial on Wiese -- I mean, on Schwarz, pardon me, and that we want to see the new prosecutor look at other charges on Wiese if there is not evidence on Wiese, and all that was involved.

But there never was unrest. I think the good thing that people do not want to deal with around the country is there was never violence around the Louima case. All of the protests were nonviolent, but they were direct and dramatic. The only violence that happened in this case is what those officers did to Abner Louima.

KELLY: Well, Al...

NEVILLE: Gentlemen, let me jump in right now. I've got to take a break. I will definitely give you a chance to respond when we come back. And later this hour, we're going to find out why detainees in Guantanamo Bay have launched a hunger strike. TALKBACK LIVE will continue in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Mark Potter with CNN. How are you? I am just wondering if you had any comment on the news that the officers' conviction have been overturned.

ABNER LOUIMA, POLICE BRUTALITY VICTIM: I have no comment at this time.

POTTER: Were you surprised by that news?

LOUIMA: No comment.

POTTER: What will you be doing now about it? Will you be talking with your attorney?

LOUIMA: Yes, that's what -- I'm talking with my attorneys, so I do not have any comments at this time. If you want any comments, additional comments, you should call my attorney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. That was Abner Louima responding to today's ruling by a federal appeals court. And before the break, Reverend Al Sharpton was clarifying that there wasn't any civil unrest, only protest involved with the trial the first time around. And Officer Kelly, you had something to respond to that?

KELLY: That was basically true, there was very little demonstrations here in New York City, but Al did allude to that there was only one victim in this case, and there may have been another victim. He might be spending 15 years in jail and he was an innocent man.

But I just didn't want to -- you know, I've done shows with Mr. Sharpton before, and I just wanted to just say, I do not disagree with him when he said -- and I have to echo this again, that things happened in that station house that night that were probably even greater than all of these four men just involved in this particular case. However, I have to just say, if it was not Charles Schwarz, he should not pay the penalty for those who were there.

Right now, Justin Volpe, we know who he is, he put a plunger in a man's rectum, said that he was not there. Thomas Wiese, another man, said it was not Charles Schwarz. There was even a fourth officer that said it wasn't Schwarz. And I think we have to -- just like there are many, many cases that I hear night and day, it seems daily, that I agree with or disagree with, it's not really that I disagree or agree with this case, I would like to see a just ending to the case. And that's as simple as that.

There is not a policeman in New York and a policeman all over the United States and maybe throughout the world that feels that if Charles Schwarz is found guilty, after a fair and complete trial, that he shouldn't get the same sentence as Justin Volpe. But let's convict the right person.

SHARPTON: Well, I do not think anyone wants the wrong person convicted, but I think that we have to be honest with the Americans that are watching this program that the policemen that you're saying that said this and that about Schwarz, or said this and that about others, what is saying once have said nothing happened. You must remember, Justin Volpe went months saying that Louima had gotten these injuries from some sex act he did in the nightclub, and then he admitted he was lying, and that he in fact did it.

So we are asked now to believe the same police that lied on Louima all along? Now we want their word to tell us who did what when they said nothing happened in the first place.

NEVILLE: Gentlemen, let's bring Joe Tacopino in on this conversation. He represented Officer Thomas Wiese this time around now. Mr. Tacopino, I want to ask you, what do you think defense attorneys will have to do to maintain the position if the officers should not be convicted, to maintain that position that they should not be convicted?

JOE TACOPINA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I do not have to do anything else. We -- I mean, I just read this opinion, my client and Tommy Bruder, the cases were reversed and dismissed. There is no further trial for us. We're finished, we're through. We won the first case. They were acquitted by a fair jury who listened to evidence against them in that trial. And now in the second trial, the court of appeals has ordered an acquittal. So we are two for two, and we're through. So you know, so we do not have that issue.

Chuck Schwarz has to go back and is going to have another trial, and hopefully he'll get a fair trial. And I think everyone, no matter what side of the fence you sit on in this issue, wants Charles Schwarz to have a fair trial. And if he has a fair trial, I believe justice will prevail.

NEVILLE: What about prosecution? Reverend Sharpton, I think you were concerned whether or not they would be committed enough.

SHARPTON: Well, I think again -- I think that -- I agree for once with Mr. Tacopina. I think that what he said is interesting. Because if you remember now, we just heard from Mr. Kelly that it is Mr. Volpe and others that are saying Joe's client was the one that did it. He just said to you, my client is finished. So when we are talking about justice...

TACOPINA: No, no, no, but reverend -- reverend, with all due respect....

SHARPTON: May I finish, sir? I did not interrupt you.

TACOPINA: I thought you finished there.

SHARPTON: Well, suppose that we find out in the fair trial for Mr. Schwarz that it is client that just was released and that is finished, that he did it. Are we now going to face double jeopardy if we go back after his client?

TACOPINA: No one is going back after his client, because understand that the prosecutors don't believe Thomas Wiese was in the bathroom. But the fact of the matter is, he was. Thomas Wiese said he walked into that bathroom. Justin Volpe said Thomas Weise walked into that bathroom. No one is denying that. You can't blur the issues here.

The fact of the matter is...

SHARPTON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bathroom, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) helping what happened.

TACOPINA: The fact the matter is -- remember, you didn't interrupt me? Remember that whole speech you just gave? Fact of the matter is, Justin Volpe said I and I alone assaulted Abner Louima. Abner Louima, when he gave his first statement, said one police officer assaulted me and inserted a stick in my rectum. Thomas Wiese walked in there right after this happened, days after -- before anyone came forward, and said I walked into that bathroom, I saw Volpe standing over Louima, here's what I saw.

So there's nobody, nobody who says Thomas Wiese did anything wrong. And if you take the first statement, even of Abner Louima, it implicates one police officer, Justin Volpe and only Justin Volpe.

SHARPTON: I think, again, Mr. Louima testified at the trial...

NEVILLE: Reverend Sharpton, I am going to jump in here and let Larry from Massachusetts chime in on this. What do you have to say, Larry?

LARRY: The question I have is on the first convictions, there had to be an indictment, there had to be an investigation, there had to be a grand jury, there had to be all those kinds of things, and then the trial. Why is there not enough evidence now to convict, when there was evidence to go through the whole process?

TACOPINA: It's not a matter of there not being enough evidence. What it's a matter of is there being a fair trial. And that's what the -- I am reading the opinion -- that's what the 2nd Circuit has determined did not happen. It's not a matter of insufficient evidence on the first trial. That was the second trial. On the first trial, what they're saying is Charles Schwarz did not receive a fair trial, that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury was exposed to matters that they -- that were contaminated, that they should not have been exposed to in deliberations.

That's all fact. That came out. That's truthful. And he did not receive a fair trial. That's the bottom line. Chuck Schwarz will have another day in court. They will have hopefully a fair trial, with a fair judge and a fair jury. And if that happens, again, we hope for a just result. NEVILLE: This debate will continue. I have to take a break right now. Reverend Sharpton, Joe Tacopina and Gerald Kelly, glad you could be with us this afternoon. I want to thank you for that.

And up next, a hunger strike at Camp X-Ray. It apparently is all over a turban and bad timing. I will explain that to you right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. About two-thirds of 300 al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay are on a hunger strike. It all started over a turban. And here to explain now is CNN national correspondent Bob Franken in Guantanamo Bay. And Bob, I understand now there are more detainees involved in this. There is talk of IV feeding of those detainees?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me, if you don't mind, Arthel, start with the news that the protest got chaotic enough this morning that security forces, armed security forces surrounded the Camp X-Ray, out of a concern that things were getting out of hand a little bit. About half of the detainees, according to officials, according to officials, about half of them started chanting and throwing their bedding from their cells this morning at about 9:45 Eastern time. Chanting, a rough translation, "God is great, there is no God but God."

In addition to that, at the noon hour, we are told by prison officials, 194 of the detainees, that's the number that has increased, 194 of them refused their meal. This is all over a incident that began on Tuesday. On Tuesday, according to the officials, a guard spotted one of the detainees wearing a turban he had fashioned out of a bed sheet. Now, turbans are not allowed under the rules because of a concern that some sort of items and contraband could be hidden in it.

When the guards, we're told, had repeatedly ordered him to remove the turban, he seemed to be ignoring them, and finally they burst into his cell, shackled him only to find out that he was praying. Officials a little bit sheepish about it. They call it an unfortunate incident. That happened on Tuesday.

Starting Wednesday, the word had spread, and 159 of the detainees went without lunch. That went to 109 last night, 107 this morning. Now it's back at 194. With the protests we told you about, there has been no injuries, nothing like that. The security forces been withdrawn, and officials say that they are giving a new instruction to the guards to make sure that they are sensitive to this.

Now, in addition to all that, medical officials say if the hunger strike would continue, they would, quote, "not let anyone starve." They would come in, would not force feed them if it was necessary, but would require them to go to the infirmary, each of the detainees, and get an IV, an intravenous feeding, either to prevent dehydration or ultimately to prevent malnutrition -- Arthel. NEVILLE: Yeah, that's what I understand. I heard you report that earlier, because that was going to be the next -- people are asking here in the audience, you know, well, how do you force feed somebody, but that clarifies that. How do you think, or do you know at this point how the U.S. government will handle this? I mean, everybody is watching, the world is watching this.

FRANKEN: Well, regrettably the reporters are not watching it. While this was going on, we were on that side of the island, we were not told about it until about five hours later, talked about the protest, and in fact we raised the clamor of our own over here, saying that we absolutely should be there to witness for ourselves.

We are told that the commanding general of the security force, who is Brigadier General Michael Lennard (ph) of the Marines is probably at this moment speaking by -- over the loudspeaker to the detainees, and then is also going to speak to the guards. There's going to be an effort, everybody says, to try and make them more sensitive to the religious circumstances.

But I have to point out that we are relying on an official account of this. We have not been allowed to go across the way to the camp. Guantanamo Bay is divided in two halves. We are on the half where there is no Camp X-Ray, no nothing, we are not allowed to move at all without a security force with us. We have not been allowed to go over there, and of course we are demanding that we do so so we can see for ourselves.

NEVILLE: Thank you for that clarification. Bob Franken, thanks so much for that update.

And with us now is Jack Burkman. He's a former Republican congressional attorney. Also, Stanley Cohen, a criminal defense attorney who has represented many high-profile clients, including the head of Hamas.

Want to ask you, gentlemen, do you think -- first of all, thank you for joining me this afternoon.

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY: Thank you.

STANLEY COHEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sure. Do you think that there is more involved here, that the detainees are possibly trying to prove something, or is it simply about the right to pray?

BURKMAN: It's anything about the right -- anything other than the right to pray. You know, I am so shocked. I thought this issue had almost risen to comedy -- excuse me -- when we were talking about the rights of POWs, but now it's actually getting worse. There has been a complete loss of perspective in this country -- 98 percent of the people down there are either al Qaeda or Taliban. They are people who are either terrorists or trained by terrorists. We're forgetting who these people are. Sure, there might be a handful of innocents. Most of these people are people who would rejoice if somebody exploded a weapon of mass destruction in the United States.

Look, if these people want to go on a hunger strike because they are dissatisfied with a guard following procedure and doing absolutely the right thing, that is their business. And I will tell you something else. I will take this today one step further. If these people want to starve themselves to death, I would say that is a good thing. And I would encourage the Defense Department not to move in and save them.

(APPLAUSE)

BURKMAN: Let me tell you something. These people, most of these people are the scum of the earth. We have found them in caves.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: You have not found these people anywhere. You know nothing about these people. No one in the audience knows.

BURKMAN: I know a lot about it.

COHEN: No, no. The reality of it is, the United States for years holds ourself out in a certain fashion. This is stupidity and it's horrible. We do not do this to Jews. We don't do this to Christians. We don't do this to Rastafarians.

We are talking about -- forget about the starvation issue. Forget about the fasting issue. You can't, for the moment, in this world condone what happened. You had a gentleman who was involved in prayer. There was a pretext to break in to force him from ending his prayer service. Seventy percent of

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Excuse me, let me finish.

Seventy percent of the persons, Muslims in the world right now believe that this is a pretext, that this is a war against Islam. It is sheer stupidity and ignorance to turn around, to go into his cell because someone is praying.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: The guards did not enter the cell because the man was praying. They guards entered the cell because

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me. Jerry here has a comment.

JERRY: I don't think we should model ourselves after the way people are treated on the other side of the ocean in Afghanistan. Detainees prisoners in jail, let's not deny them their right to pray according to their convictions. Check a turban. Check a skull cap, but let them pray. COHEN: Even Jews, Jews in jail, pre-trial detainees, are not forced to take their yarmulkes off. Rastafarians are not forced to shave their heads. Greek Orthodox are not forced to take their hats off. It didn't matter whether he had something on his head or not. The fact the matter of is, there was no need to go he into the cell, a locked cell, to stop someone from praying. It was stupid.

BURKMAN: There certainly was. There is an issue of something called enforcement of the rules.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Why not wait five minutes until the end of the prayer? This isn't enforcement of rules. This is intimidation and religious persecution, which the Justice Department has been doing against Muslims for years now.

BURKMAN: Are you suggesting that the guard, in doing that, was somehow discriminating against Muslims or trying to stop a prayer? Is that your allegation today?

COHEN: What I am suggesting is...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: But is that what are you alleging, yes or no?

COHEN: Let me -- the guards are acting in accord with the standards which are set by the government, which, when it comes to Muslims, has always permitted the government in general and the Justice Department in particular to treat them differently than Jews and Christians. Have some decency.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: We are going to taking a break right now. We will continue this discussion after the break.

And later this hour, Marc Klaas joins us, as we update the Danielle van Dam murder case. We will be right back in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(INTERRUPTED FOR COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about a hunger strike among some of the al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Camp X-Ray.

And Judy in Indiana wants to get in on this conversation.

Judy, hello. And what do you have to say?

CALLER: Yes, I would like to respond to Mr. Cohen's remark. I think one thing that has failed to be mentioned here, this detainee has been there a while. He knew the rules. Why would he put a turban on? I agree with the other speaker that they are the scum of the earth. They are being protected and cared for. We are a good and just people. This is war, whether we have termed it war or not. As far as I am concerned, all they need is rice, water, milk and a blanket, I think they should be in their underwear so they cannot hide anything.

As far as I am concerned, they are prisoners. They are treated now probably more humanely than they have ever been treated in their lives.

BURKMAN: Well, I would say, you know, I agree, Arthel, largely with the comments, not all of them, but most of them.

And I will say, the person makes a good comment in that these people have never lived better in their lives. The standard is not the American standard. These people are getting medical care for the first time in their lives. They are getting three meals a day for the first time in their lives. The U.S. Defense Department is really the first entity in the world that has ever taken decent care of them, and the left is up in arms all over the world.

I'll tell you something else. This is not about religion. DOD is very cautious to not discriminate against Muslims. This had nothing to do with religion. You had an instance where a poor guard was simply trying to enforce the rules. And I would remind my worthy opponent, on this business of concealed weapons, if we remember back to 9/11 -- and I think the images of 9/11 have gotten a little bit too distant for most of this country, as far as I am concerned -- but it was concealed weapons. And it was this issue that was what brought those planes down.

So let's let these guards do their job. And let's hope, if anything, they are a little overzealous.

COHEN: You know what the problem is? The problem is really not about the prayer. It's not about the turban. The problem is -- and this is a recipe for disaster -- everyone says these people are this or these people are that or these people are such and such.

These people have been held for a number of months. Put them on trial. Whether you want to use the military tribunals that are silly or you want to bring them to the United States, investigate them, prosecute them and do something. You can't keep people in a perpetual state of uncertainty, particularly when 80 percent of the Muslim world -- we are talking about hundreds of millions of people.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Hundreds of millions of people are watching this. This is a recipe for disaster. If you have the evidence, try them. If you don't, let them go.

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: And this is where I'm going to interject here, guys, because Judith from Pennsylvania had a comment to say about this -- Judy.

JUDITH: I just feel that the guard did the right thing, that he obviously did not understand the language. If he had understood the language, then he would have known if he was praying or not. He did not know whether he was communicating with the other prisoners and therefore had to protect the interests of

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Well, with all due respect to you, when a Muslim prays, he or she gets down are on their hands and knees and faces a certain direction. It can't be misconstrued for anything other than prayer.

JUDITH: Oh, but it can.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Jack, you know what? Judith has a great follow-up here. Let me let her jump in. This about the people, too.

JUDITH: If you want to tell somebody something, it does not matter if you are in the act of praying or if you're standing up. The point is, if you do not understand the language, then how do you know what the person is doing? Yes, you can assume he is praying, but if he is not supposed to have a turban on, what is the purpose? Let him get the turban off and then let him pray.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: We don't this to Jews. We don't drag Jews out of the prayer service in jail. We don't drag Christians out of prayer service. It is obvious he is praying. He is in a locked cell. He can't do anything to anyone. There is no way that you can try to begin to argue rationally that he had to what he had to do at that moment

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: It is not our job to make sure these people have massive opportunities to pray. It is not our job to provide them with sanctuary for religious services. The Geneva Convention...

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Under international law that we are signatories to, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, all persons have a fundamental right to exercise their religion.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Security comes first.

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: We are going to hear for the people now. I do have an e-mail I would like to share with everybody. And let's take a look at that.

OK, this is from Easton, Connecticut, Robert: "Perhaps we should provide color television, cable access and gourmet food to go with the air-conditioned quarters they appear to have."

Jack, I am sure you have something to say about that.

You know what? Mr. Cohen, let me let you go ahead and get in there.

COHEN: Perhaps what we should do, finally, is stop the rhetoric, stop the screaming, and prove the case. Everyone assumes things just because the government says these are good people or bad people. Enough. Prove your case. Where is the evidence?

BURKMAN: That is easy to say if you had 40, 50, 60 people. Unfortunately, we are headed for a situation where we may have thousands and still thousands more. You have to put yourself in the position of the defense secretary or the president.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: You hold on one minute.

This is an unprecedented case. We have never seen anything like this before. This is a situation where you have thousands of people who need to be tried. We don't yet know the scope of this. The U.S. government is doing the best job it can.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, guys, I am jumping in once again, because, again, this is about people talking back. And I want to take a look at another e-mail we have coming across now.

OK, this is Dan in Telford, Pennsylvania: "No matter what these men have done, they are still humans. They deserve the respect that any person would give to anyone else."

COHEN: Amen.

BURKMAN: Of course they do, Arthel.

But when the guards enforce those rules, those rules are for the safety of the prisoners as well as the safety of the guards and for the nation as a whole.

COHEN: What you keep forgetting is, the gentleman was locked in his cage, was not free, was not walking around. There was no need at that moment to do anything. This was not a crisis. This was not an evolving situation. This was a situation -- we have been told the guards have been trained in Muslim practice. We have been told the guards are sensitive to it. He knew he was praying. All he had to do was wait until the end of prayer and then deal with the situation. But, no, they he had to provoke this.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Jack, let me give you 10 seconds and then I am out.

BURKMAN: These people are getting what they want. They are going on a hunger strike. They are getting the sympathy of the Europeans. They are getting sympathy all over the Arab world. Look, if they want to go on a hunger strike, it is not the job of the U.S. government to stop them. And it's not the job of the U.S. government to feed them.

NEVILLE: Got to break.

Thank you very much, Jack Burkman and Stanley Cohen. Glad you could join us today..

And up next, we'll talk with Marc Klaas. He's been comforting the family of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. Police now believe they have found the little girl's body.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back.

Investigators are fairly sure the body of a little girl found in a wooded area some 25 miles outside of San Diego is that of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. And the story can only get more painful as they learn what happened to the child after she was abducted from her bedroom. An autopsy should help determine that. A neighbor, David Westerfield, has been charged in Danielle's kidnapping and murder.

And with us now is Marc Klaas. He is the founder of the Klaas Kids Foundation. Its sole purpose is to stop crimes against children. His own daughter, Polly, was abducted from her bedroom and murdered.

Mr. Klaas, thank you so much for being here with us this afternoon.

MARC KLAAS, FOUNDER, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sure.

What do you say to the parents, to her family right now? What are they going through?

KLAAS: Well, there is really nothing that anybody should be saying to them at this moment, although they should be keeping them in their prayers. I think that they need a little bit of space. They have just been hit with the hardest news that any parent ever has to face: that their child, against all the odds, has been brutally kidnapped and murdered when she nor anybody in the house was doing anything wrong. How does one process something like that?

So, I think they need 24, 48 hours just to deal with that within the family. And then perhaps people should start reaching out and offering condolences and offering any assistance that they might be able to offer, which is what I plan to do.

NEVILLE: Sure.

Now, certainly not to imply at all that they are in any way guilty, but, as a parent, you would feel guilty, I am sure, a little bit, and angry. There is such an array of emotions going on right now. If you can kind of give us an idea of what they might be feeling at this point, because all parents want to protect their children. And you feel, "What could I have done differently?"

KLAAS: Well, you know, there is nothing they could have done differently.

There is no way you can stop a determined predator from getting his hands on a child. You just can't be in the room with the child 24 hours a day. And that is the kind of vigilance it would take. What you're looking at is a family that been in absolute abject fear for the past three weeks. Not only that, there have been outside assaults on the family. So they have been dealing with that.

But now, all of a sudden, they find out that their worst fears have been realized. And those fears, then, are immediately replaced by the kind of anger that is almost impossible to contain. Self- doubt, obviously. Feelings of guilt, yes. But, you know what? She was in her room. She did nothing wrong. Nobody in that family did anything wrong. This falls right on the shoulders of this pervert Westerfield.

NEVILLE: What do you say? Because there are people at home who might sit there and try to say, "Well, you know, if the parents had better -- had been taking care of their daughter or had a better idea of where their daughter was, if they weren't out," whatever -- people are always speculating. And what do you say to those people?

KLAAS: Well, you know what? When are they able to protect their own children 24 hours a day?

I think one of the great lessons of this is that you can never be too secure and too safe, even in your own home. This guy lived across the street from them for a period of three years. And they had absolutely no idea, nor did anyone else in the community. These parents have done absolutely the right thing with their child. She was not left alone in any way, shape or form. They are wonderful parents. I have seen them interact with their other boys. They are just absolutely heartbroken.

This is not a time to criticize. This is a time to hold them in our prayers. NEVILLE: Well, thank you so much for your comments. We are completely out of time. Marc Klaas, thank you very much for joining us today.

And thanks to all of us, our studio audience here today and all of you at home, for your comments.

I'm Arthel Neville. And I will be back tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern, noon Pacific, and we will talk more right here on TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com